Different loads for the .357 have substancially different purposes. Good loads for the .357 vary from hunting to lighter loads intended to be shot from snubbies with differing bullet weights. Some loads are intended for large frame revolvers and for most folks work best from those guns and some meant for J frame CCW guns. Some make different levels of noise and muzzle flash. This noise can vary with the length of barrel used. It can effect how well someone shoots in a dark enclosed space.

It makes sense for folks to take these and other factors into consideration when choosing what gun and what loads best suit a specific application. Of great importance is how well you shoot a particular load out of a particular gun.

In my experience the .357 mag is a much more versatile round than most of those shot from semis. It's a decent hunting round with the right load and bullet and does well from a levergun. It can be more powerful than the 9mm or 45acp. Most such loads though are not so useful in an urban self defense scenario.

It is not know for certain that the .357 has more terminal effectiveness than a .45 ACP, or a .40 at all, or if it has more real world effectiveness than 9mm for that matter. In fact, anecdotal police evidence points to the 180 grain .40 S&W being every bit as effective, in fact more so than the old 125 grain .357 in the California Highway Patrol's hands. They used the 125 grain .357 from 1970-1990, they have used the .40 S&W from 1990-till today. Thats along time with a lot of shootings, autopsy and officer reports give the 180 grain .40 S&W higher marks.

If not for anecdotal data on stopping power you would have nothing. Actually most CHP personnel used 125 grain 38 specials and very few were authorized magnums. You would be better served to check stats of an agency such as the USBP that used magnums.

Quote:

In my experience the .357 mag is a much more versatile round than most of those shot from semis. It's a decent hunting round with the right load and bullet and does well from a levergun. It can be more powerful than the 9mm or 45acp. Most such loads though are not so useful in an urban self defense scenario.

If not for anecdotal evidence Marshall and Sanow would have nothing. The whole reputation of the .357 Magnum and the 125 grain bullet was built on anecdotal evidence and a faulty data set. Actual ballistic testing and forensic wound analysis certainly doesn't support those who claim how superior it is.

The CHP has used the .40 S&W for 20+ years. It has had excellent officer involved shooting results. There is no way of getting around that fact, or the fact those results are better, than previous results with their old .357 magnum weapons using 125 gr bullets.

Semi autos are never going away, LE agencies are never going to carry the .357 Magnum revolver again. The 9mm/40 S&W have proven themselves to be effective. They're here to stay for the foreseeable future.

I don't think you're understanding the importance of quantifying such things before making absolutist statments.

I firmly believe there is enough information out there to make somewhat of an informed decision about caliber effectiveness vs hearing loss. I personally think you are looking into it way too deeply, and I don't need endless charts, graphs, super specific studies and page upon page of data to make an informed decision. Now that's not to say I haven't done a good amount of research into each of the matters, just that I don't need a chart and a graph to make up my mind for me, I choose to do that on my own. I trust the 9mm and .45 regardless of what statistical data says on the internet. I know those rounds have significantly lower DB levels than the .357 mag, thus the potential to cause less damage. I don't need a study directly comparing cartridge effectiveness vs potential hearing loss to make the decision of what caliber to use.

There's no disputing that any round regardless of caliber has the potential to cause hearing damage.

There's no disputing higher DB levels have the potential to cause more damage form shot to shot. If you don't believe me go talk to a ENT because I have seen several.

There's no disputing the .357 magnum is significantly louder than modern 9mm or .45 etc... i.e. the potential to cause more damage from shot to shot compared to a lower pressure round.

There's enough information out there to support the 9mm or .45 as a viable choice as a self defense round.

Therefore using a 9mm or .45, which are perfectly viable options for a self defense round, yet have a significantly lower DB level than the .357 mag, can minimize the degree of hearing loss you may suffer form shot to shot. There is enough information out there to support this, period.

As for the OP's question, 125 for 2 legged threats and 158+ in the woods. The excess penetration of the heavier rounds is a waste and extra liability. The 125's provide plenty of penetration on a human torso and, in general, will open up more quickly and do more damage.

If not for anecdotal evidence Marshall and Sanow would have nothing. The whole reputation of the .357 Magnum and the 125 grain bullet was built on anecdotal evidence and a faulty data set. Actual ballistic testing and forensic wound analysis certainly doesn't support those who claim how superior it is.

The 357 magnum was a known fight stopper long before M&S and the 125 JHP. It has in fact been around since about 1935. This I believe pre-dates the vaunted gelatine testing designed to simulate pig flesh which is believed to simulate human flesh and thereby proving beyond any doubt anything important.

Quote:

The CHP has used the .40 S&W for 20+ years. It has had excellent officer involved shooting results. There is no way of getting around that fact, or the fact those results are better, than previous results with their old .357 magnum weapons using 125 gr bullets.

As I stated most Chippies were actually required to use 38 Specials. I believe it was actually a 110 Grn +P+ not the 125 I mentioned earlier. Only a few in northern Cali used magnums from 1970 to 1990. The USBP went to 40 S&W in 1995/1996 and used a 155 grn JHP @ 1250 FPS and it worked well.

Quote:

Semi autos are never going away, LE agencies are never going to carry the .357 Magnum revolver again. The 9mm/40 S&W have proven themselves to be effective. They're here to stay for the foreseeable future.

That was not the question of this thread. What is your point? If you do not like the 357 Magnum don't use it. I use the modern equivalent these days, but that too strays from the subject of the thread.

I read your wall of text Webley and I know the point you were trying to make about hearing, etc. Regardless of that, I have a hard time letting the above slide. You warn against making absolutist statements, then go on to make one.

It is not know for certain that the .357 has more terminal effectiveness than a .45 ACP, or a .40 at all, or if it has more real world effectiveness than 9mm for that matter. In fact, anecdotal police evidence points to the 180 grain .40 S&W being every bit as effective, in fact more so than the old 125 grain .357 in the California Highway Patrol's hands. They used the 125 grain .357 from 1970-1990, they have used the .40 S&W from 1990-till today. Thats along time with a lot of shootings, autopsy and officer reports give the 180 grain .40 S&W higher marks.

You need to read my post a bit more carefully.

Originally posted by Webleymkv

Quote:

If the .357 Magnum causes only a small increase in hearing damage while also having a great deal more terminal effectiveness, then the extra hearing damage is likely a worthwhile tradeoff. However, if the .357 causes a great deal more hearing damage while only having a small increase in terminal effectiveness than it is not a worthwhile tradeoff. If these attributes cannot be quantified in some way, however, then such comparisons are impossible to make.

emphasis added

To classify this as an absolutist statement is taking it out of context. These were hypothetical statements made to illustrate a larger point rather than claims on my part. Nowhere in my post did I claim that a .357 Magnum is, beyond shadow of a doubt, more effective than 9mm, .45 ACP, or any other cartridge. In fact, I went to great length to explain that there is no consensus about which cartridge is most effective.

As for this,

Originally posted by nate45

Quote:

Ballistic gelatin penetration test also show that the various .357 loadings don't preform substantially different than other handgun cartridges either.

Originally posted by Webleymkv

Quote:

What we do know for certain is that a .357 Magnum is capable of performance that is substantially different than that of common service cartridges like 9mm and .45 ACP.

emphasis added

That statement I will stand by. With a modern bullet like a Speer Gold Dot, the .357 Magnum is capable of substantially deeper penetration in both bare and clothed gelatin than other common service cartridges like .38 Special, 9mm, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. Here's the data from ATK (the parent company of both Speer and Federal):

Likewise, older .357 Magnum loadings with semi-jacketed hollowpoint bullets were fairly well known for shedding fairly large shards of their jackets with the lead core attaining penetration depths in the 11-13" range with retained weights of 60% or more. This is unlike fragmenting semi-auto bullets because they normally fragment to a greater degree and give penetration depths in the shallower 8-10" range. Unfortunately, much of the gel test data for older loadings has been taken down from various websites and/or was published in out-of-print publications. As such, I've not yet been able to find a link which gives penetration, expansion, and weight retention for these sorts of loadings but if I do, I'll post it here.

In any case, the point is that while we cannot conclusively say that the .357 Magnum is better, worse, or equally effective to other cartridges, we can at least say that with at least some loadings it behaves very differently.

Originally posted by Dragline45

Quote:

I firmly believe there is enough information out there to make somewhat of an informed decision about caliber effectiveness vs hearing loss. I personally think you are looking into it way too deeply, and I don't need endless charts, graphs, super specific studies and page upon page of data to make an informed decision. Now that's not to say I haven't done a good amount of research into each of the matters, just that I don't need a chart and a graph to make up my mind for me, I choose to do that on my own. I trust the 9mm and .45 regardless of what statistical data says on the internet. I know those rounds have significantly lower DB levels than the .357 mag, thus the potential to cause less damage. I don't need a study directly comparing cartridge effectiveness vs potential hearing loss to make the decision of what caliber to use.

Well, it's good that you don't need a chart because apparently one does not exist. I don't dispute that the 9mm and .45 are effective defensive cartridges nor that the .357 Magnum will cause hearing damage, I just question whether or not the 9mm and .45 are equally effective and will cause substantially less hearing damage than a .357 Magnum will.

Quote:

There's no disputing that any round regardless of caliber has the potential to cause hearing damage.

No disagreement there.

Quote:

There's no disputing higher DB levels have the potential to cause more damage form shot to shot. If you don't believe me go talk to a ENT because I have seen several.

I'm not questioning that either, I only question the proportion to which increasing dB levels correlate to hearing damage but apparently that information is unavailable.

Quote:

There's no disputing the .357 magnum is significantly louder than modern 9mm or .45 etc... i.e. the potential to cause more damage from shot to shot compared to a lower pressure round.

OK, so the .357 Magnum will cause more hearing damage than a 9mm or .45, but we don't know how much more. Also, we don't really know how these cartridges compare to each other in terms of terminal effectiveness. I know how I think they compare, and you know how you think they compare, but there's nothing definitive.

Look at it this way, if one cartridge is louder, but also more effective than another, which cartridge is a better choice for self-defense? Obviously it could be argued that the quieter, less effective cartridge is the better choice so long as it's still adequately effective, but it could also be argued that the louder, more effective cartridge is the better choice because it will more likely resolve the SD situation with a smaller number of shots and thus expose the user to fewer ear-damaging gun shots.

Quote:

There's enough information out there to support the 9mm or .45 as a viable choice as a self defense round.

Therefore using a 9mm or .45, which are perfectly viable options for a self defense round, yet have a significantly lower DB level than the .357 mag, can minimize the degree of hearing loss you may suffer form shot to shot. There is enough information out there to support this, period.

I've never claimed that a 9mm or .45 are not viable self-defense cartridges, only that a .357 Magnum might be better still.

Like you, I've also done a good amount of reading on the subject and drawn my own conclusions. I've come to the conclusion that, with careful load selection the .357 Magnum does have the potential to be somewhat more effective than the more common service cartridges like 9mm and .45 ACP.

I also reject the notion that every single loading of a given cartridge generates the same dB levels. I believe, instead, that the dB level charts are overly simplified in order to may them more easily understood by lay people. The .357 Magnum loading which I've chosen do not seem to be nearly as loud as other common loadings. I also notice that the loadings I think are most effective in 9mm and .45 ACP seem to be among the loudest for those cartridges. Because of this, I've doubt that the difference in dB levels between my chosen .357 Magnum loading and my chosen 9mm and .45 loadings are as great as the various handgun dB charts would suggest and thus the difference in hearing damage that they would cause is probably smaller as well.

These statements about effectiveness and hearing damage are, however, my own personal conclusions and opinions and should be taken as such. I am not an authority on such matters, though I do base my opinions on the work of people who I consider to be reputable authorities on such things, so someone looking for guidance on the subject should do his or her own research and come to his or her own conclusions as you and I have done. I guess my real issue was that you appeared to present your statements as proven facts rather than personal opinion.

My daily carry is a .357 and I prefer the 158 gr. projectile. I'm not a student of ballistics but I would rather hit you with the biggest rock that I can throw at you. As far as the report of the round is concerned, I don't think that would be of primary concern to me in a self-defense situation. No scientific reasoning...just plain old personal preference.

I agree with everything your saying, there really is no way to tell how much more damage one round causes compared to another. Since that information is not available I can see why some may not think it's worth choosing a caliber based on how much damage it may do to ones hearing, especially if they never suffered damage to begin with. Since I already suffered some hearing damage my logic is to go with a lower pressure round to potentially prevent as much damage as possible in the future. I too am not an authority on such matters, the best I can do is draw a conclusion based off what information is out there and choose what suits my needs the most.

I no longer carry my 357 mag for defense. It has been regulated to a hunting carry and used for dispatching the odd varmint around the property.

For self defense I duplicate the load carried by my local LEOs. See the threads in the legal portion of the forum for a complete discussion of this position.

My hunting load is a 146 grain speer JHP propelled by __ grains of WW296 with a heavy roll crimp. The load was developed by a La Highway Patrol Sgt and served him well in 4 fatal encounters in line of duty. The round has taken some 20 white tail. ( I do not hunt but they were used by friends who do)

Note: The actual weight of the propellant exceeds the limits in most current reload manuals. If you would like it send me a private message.

For practice I developed a 38spl 148 grain wc load which has the same impact at 25yds as does the 146 grain load.

Have shot the load for over 35 years and have complete faith that I will hit the target and put the varmint down.

My last statement is probably the critical reason I have stuck with the round.

Then how do you leap from testing in water, or gelatine to arrive at an accurate indicator of performance and effectiveness?

There is no such "leap" to be made.

Testing in such mediums (gelatin, water) yields measurable, recordable, repeatable data (not anecdotal heresay) such as average expansion, penetration depth, and amount of tissue damaged in the wound track which are indicators of performance and effectiveness.

After that, what that particular bullet design hits is what matters and that cannot be predicted.

Testing in such mediums (gelatin, water) yields measurable, recordable, repeatable data (not anecdotal heresay) such as average expansion, penetration depth, and amount of tissue damaged in the wound track which are indicators of performance and effectiveness.

Here is where we must agree to disagree. I agree that that is an indicator of performance-in the test medium. It is great for comparing bullets against each other, however, I just do not see a parallel on street performance. One would be better served to focus on tactics and skill than worry about the latest wiz bang bullets.

I generally use the same ammo I did 20 years ago, it worked then It will work now.

I think it is a well written article that states the authors opinion well. I agree with most of what he says, especially the part about the unpredictability of bullets in people and what their reactions can be. He makes a great point in marksmanship and I agree wholeheartedly, it is far more important to be a master of your weapon than to use the latest wiz bang wonder bullet.

Case in point; in my post retirement part time job one of the young guys wants to buy a 10mm as his first duty gun because it is so much more effective than the 9mm or 45 (his words). He has never fired a handgun before, so needless to say I am attempting to get logic to overrule emotion.

Shot placement is always the most important aspect, in real life it is also the most elusive aspect because the BG does not want to get shot either. To safely deliver that shot you will probably be diving/running for cover in the dark or semi dark and may have already been shot or shot at.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.